• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Civil Unions

Should civil unions replace marriage for legal purposes?


  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
If one gender is being discriminated against, then what is your point about "two genders"?

for this argument's sake, and for clarity, Discrimination with a big D is the bad kind, the racist, sexist, evil bigoted kind.
discrimination with a little d just means selective judgment based on relevant characteristics. denying loans to people with bad credit is discrimination.

automatically assuming Discrimination is taking place is impetuous. when someone makes that call, I immediately want to know what the Discrimination is based on. race? gender? orientation?

one gender is not being discriminated against in the issue of gay marriage. if both genders--and thus all genders--are subject to the same rules, any discrimination taking place cannot logically be based on gender.

men and women are not allowed to share bathrooms, but their bathrooms are equally operative, the same size with the same cleaning staff. is this a case of "separate but equal" terrible Discrimination? which gender is being treated unfairly? it is functional discrimination with a little d.

a hateful mexican who will not allow nonmexicans in his restaurant is not racist if he won't allow mexicans either. he's just a jerk and a poor businessman.

I'm trying to find a post that states my entire argument. maybe I will post a PM I sent to YamiB.
 
Marriage was an institution established for business purposes. It was a way to grant sexual rights to ensure legitimate heirs, a way to increase wealth by combining property, and a simple way to establish who inherits what.

Then we'd better stop those people who are infertile, those people who don't want children or those people too old to have children from getting married because they cannot fulfill the first part of your claim. As for the others, that can be fulfilled by homosexual couples as well.

Try again. :roll:
 
for this argument's sake, and for clarity, Discrimination with a big D is the bad kind, the racist, sexist, evil bigoted kind.
discrimination with a little d just means selective judgment based on relevant characteristics. denying loans to people with bad credit is discrimination.

automatically assuming Discrimination is taking place is impetuous. when someone makes that call, I immediately want to know what the Discrimination is based on. race? gender? orientation?

one gender is not being discriminated against in the issue of gay marriage. if both genders--and thus all genders--are subject to the same rules, any discrimination taking place cannot logically be based on gender.

men and women are not allowed to share bathrooms, but their bathrooms are equally operative, the same size with the same cleaning staff. is this a case of "separate but equal" terrible Discrimination? which gender is being treated unfairly? it is functional discrimination with a little d.

a hateful mexican who will not allow nonmexicans in his restaurant is not racist if he won't allow mexicans either. he's just a jerk and a poor businessman.

I'm trying to find a post that states my entire argument. maybe I will post a PM I sent to YamiB.

Would you consider the banning of interracial marriage to be Discrimination or discrimination?

Obviously the laws being passed are targeted at homosexuals a good comparison would be poll taxes and literacy tests for voting in history. These laws were targeted at preventing people from voting due to their race although the criteria used was not directly their race.
 
Would you consider the banning of interracial marriage to be Discrimination or discrimination?

not really either. more just racism. and I think there was racism on all sides, not just white on black. minorities are often really, really racist. the white people making those laws were racist.

Obviously the laws being passed are targeted at homosexuals a good comparison would be poll taxes and literacy tests for voting in history. These laws were targeted at preventing people from voting due to their race although the criteria used was not directly their race.

I think this is a pretty good point but when I break it down and think it over I don't actually agree with much if any of your reasoning.

"Obviously the laws being passed are targeted at homosexuals"--this is discrimination whereby the individual state chooses not to grant marriage as it exists for heterosexual couples to homosexual couples. the way I see it the state has every right to calculate or predict the ROI and decide if it is more appropriate to grant marriages, civil unions or nothing to to these couples, since state sponsored marriage is certainly an investment on the state's part. I have seen no fundamental right to state sponsored marriage that would preclude the state exercising this selective judgment. yes though, the most recent scramble to define marriage more specifically is to prevent homosexual couples from marrying. yes, a lot of the people responsible for this probably oppose the practice of homosexuality on religious grounds, or are bigots.

"a good comparison would be poll taxes and literacy tests for voting in history"--let's not get into how I feel about illiterate people voting, and instead use the poll tax example. poll taxes, as far as I know, were put in place to prevent poor people from voting in areas where most poor people were black. black people were given the vote with the ratification of the 13th-15th amendments. imposing a poll tax to keep them and only them from voting is in direct violation of the constitution in many ways.

"These laws were targeted at preventing people from voting due to their race although the criteria used was not directly their race."--by which you mean that homosexuals couples are barred from marriage although state governments do not use the individuals' orientations alone to exclude them. that in and of itself is true. I don't see a direct violation of the constitution in this case because I don't see where homosexuals are guaranteed the right to enter into homosexual marriage. they are not excluded from heterosexual marriage. I realize that will not typically be appealing to them because of their orientation towards members of their own sexes, but the rights are the same in any case. nowhere do I think is there a clause obligating the government to provide any kind of contract two people may wish to enter into. if the government is inclined to offer a contract, it should offer it to any legal adult (with certain commonsense exceptions) but it is NOT compelled to alter that contract to accommodate every citizen's specific needs or wants. I see it as more of a take-it-or-leave-it.

I do understand YamiB. in response to an earlier argument you made that benefits afforded by state sponsored marriage are not limited to childbearing or rearing, and that homosexual couples want things like hospital visitation etc. I can perfectly understand where they're coming from and I agree that these legal issues need to be addressed, whether by entities like hospitals etc or by the government, but I don't think the automatic answer is to give homosexuals marriages designed for heterosexual couples.
 
Bodhisattva, I hope my above post is something you can work with. also I'd like to point out that before you thanked my other post I had 317 thanks on St. Patrick's Day.
 
Then we'd better stop those people who are infertile, those people who don't want children or those people too old to have children from getting married because they cannot fulfill the first part of your claim. As for the others, that can be fulfilled by homosexual couples as well.

Try again. :roll:

You are referring to the exceptions. Laws are made with the general public in mind.

A fertile heterosexual coupling can result in natural children.

A fertile homosexual coupling can never result in natural children.

The laws were made to cover the resulting offspring of the heterosexual couple. Homosexuals are already free to adopt. In adopting a child you sign papers saying that you are willing and able to take care of the kid. Natural born children are born with no such paperwork; thus, the laws to grant them rights.
 
You are referring to the exceptions. Laws are made with the general public in mind.

A fertile heterosexual coupling can result in natural children.

A fertile homosexual coupling can never result in natural children.

The laws were made to cover the resulting offspring of the heterosexual couple. Homosexuals are already free to adopt. In adopting a child you sign papers saying that you are willing and able to take care of the kid. Natural born children are born with no such paperwork; thus, the laws to grant them rights.

for a second I thought you were Jerry.

but only for a second. that first sentence...

(you're pro-gm, remember?)
 
You are referring to the exceptions. Laws are made with the general public in mind.

A fertile heterosexual coupling can result in natural children.

Yet we allow infertile heterosexual couples to get married, couplings which cannot EVER result in natural children. We allow women past the age of menopause to get married even though they can never produce natural children. Come on, you're not even trying.

A fertile homosexual coupling can never result in natural children.

Nor can many other heterosexual couplings, as I've already pointed out, yet they can get married without any problems. In fact, I'm unaware of a single marriage license issued on the basis of the ability to breed.

The laws were made to cover the resulting offspring of the heterosexual couple. Homosexuals are already free to adopt. In adopting a child you sign papers saying that you are willing and able to take care of the kid. Natural born children are born with no such paperwork; thus, the laws to grant them rights.

Actually, most states restrict the ability of homosexuals to adopt at all.

Come on, you're not making any sense at all.
 
Then we'd better stop those people who are infertile, those people who don't want children or those people too old to have children from getting married because they cannot fulfill the first part of your claim.

Link to your bill, please.

I will likely support it.
 
(you're pro-gm, remember?)

Since when?

I honestly don't really care one one way or the other about gay marriage. I just like debating it. :doh
 
Last edited:
fmen and women are not allowed to share bathrooms, but their bathrooms are equally operative, the same size with the same cleaning staff. is this a case of "separate but equal" terrible Discrimination? which gender is being treated unfairly? it is functional discrimination with a little d.

Generally speaking, the women are getting the short end of that stick. My family goes to a public restroom near Pier 39 in San Francisco...I'm back out on the street in minutes....and spend twenty more watching this bum trying to sell hand made copper-wire figurines before the cops move him down the road...it takes more time for females to void their bladders, so there's often a long female line in those kinds of places.

If the government is going to build public restrooms, it wouldn't hurt if that basic fact of life was taken into account when designing facilities.
 
Yet we allow infertile heterosexual couples to get married, couplings which cannot EVER result in natural children. We allow women past the age of menopause to get married even though they can never produce natural children. Come on, you're not even trying.

What about the gay couples past the age of child bearing?



In fact, I'm unaware of a single marriage license issued on the basis of the ability to breed.

If you are Catholic, a lack of children is grounds for an annulment.



Actually, most states restrict the ability of homosexuals to adopt at all.

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Come on, you're not making any sense at all.

Hablas ingles?
 
Generally speaking, the women are getting the short end of that stick. My family goes to a public restroom near Pier 39 in San Francisco...I'm back out on the street in minutes....and spend twenty more watching this bum trying to sell hand made copper-wire figurines before the cops move him down the road...it takes more time for females to void their bladders, so there's often a long female line in those kinds of places.

If the government is going to build public restrooms, it wouldn't hurt if that basic fact of life was taken into account when designing facilities.

I always imagine a scenario where I heroically give up my spot in line to a pregnant woman. I figure it's the least I can do since I use their parking spaces. fortunately though it's never come up.

the bathroom line is an opportunity for reflection and meditation, or if you like, social networking.
 
What about the gay couples past the age of child bearing?


If you are Catholic, a lack of children is grounds for an annulment.


this ^^^^ isn't relevant


Do you have any evidence to back that up?

and this ^^^^ is pretty common knowledge actually.

you're making my team look bad. try harder, switch sides or drop out. ;) te quiero!
 
this ^^^^ isn't relevant

It is. He said he didn't know of a single marriage license that was based on breeding. I just gave one example.

Absolutes, remember?


and this ^^^^ is pretty common knowledge actually.

For whom? I was unaware of this "fact." And I still demand that he back up his claim.[/QUOTE]
 
does the catholic church provide marriage licenses?

You sign a state license, I believe, during the ceremony. However, religious differences are considered serious enough for grounds for a state divorce. If you told a lawyer that that you were no longer married in the eyes of the church for religious reasons X,Y and Z, you would have a solid case.

For most, the religious aspect is far more important than the governmental. Because marriage is usually so deeply entwined with tradition in a religion, the state will basically stay out of it as much as possible and adhere to the religious institution (within reason).
 
does the catholic church provide marriage licenses?

Not directly, no, in that the church is not the issuing authority of the municipal license.

However, when you are married in a Catholic Church, you agree to various conditions which are added to your municipal license; such as alimony.

One condition is the expectation to procreate, and failure of either person to procreate is grounds for divorce/annulment.

***
It's critical to understand that not raising children is the exception tolerated, not the rule supported.
 
It is. He said he didn't know of a single marriage license that was based on breeding. I just gave one example.

But that's not a marriage license, licenses are issued by the state, not the Catholic Church. Besides, even if the church could issue licenses, they would not refuse to issue one because one did not breed, but they could recind one after the fact for someone not breeding somewhere down the line.
 
Not directly, no, in that the church is not the issuing authority of the municipal license.

However, when you are married in a Catholic Church, you agree to various conditions which are added to your municipal license; such as alimony.

One condition is the expectation to procreate, and failure of either person to procreate is grounds for divorce/annulment.

***
It's critical to understand that not raising children is the exception tolerated, not the rule supported.

I understand that it is the exception but I don't understand how the catholic example illustrates that point since the church doesn't give out marriage licenses in the US.
 
for this argument's sake, and for clarity, Discrimination with a big D is the bad kind, the racist, sexist, evil bigoted kind.
discrimination with a little d just means selective judgment based on relevant characteristics. denying loans to people with bad credit is discrimination.

automatically assuming Discrimination is taking place is impetuous. when someone makes that call, I immediately want to know what the Discrimination is based on. race? gender? orientation?

one gender is not being discriminated against in the issue of gay marriage. if both genders--and thus all genders--are subject to the same rules, any discrimination taking place cannot logically be based on gender.

men and women are not allowed to share bathrooms, but their bathrooms are equally operative, the same size with the same cleaning staff. is this a case of "separate but equal" terrible Discrimination? which gender is being treated unfairly? it is functional discrimination with a little d.

a hateful mexican who will not allow nonmexicans in his restaurant is not racist if he won't allow mexicans either. he's just a jerk and a poor businessman.

I'm trying to find a post that states my entire argument. maybe I will post a PM I sent to YamiB.

I didn't respond becuase I essentially agree with you regarding all of this... :2razz:

Except the part that if two genders are being discriminated against that this somehow magically negates Discrimination. If people are being banned from something based on gender or sexual orientation, then it doesn't matter if it is one or two genders, this is ridiculous. That is why the Mexican analogy does work. If a Mexican discriminates against all races, then he is Discriminating all races. A law set up to stop all same sex marriages in Discriminating against both genders for the reasons of disallowing same sex marriages due to their sexual orientation. It is Discriminating against me even, a hetero, for I am denied the right to marry a man if I chose to do so. This is illogical and there is no logical reason for such Discrimination.
 
I didn't respond becuase I essentially agree with you regarding all of this... :2razz:

bff

Except the part that if two genders are being discriminated against that this somehow magically negates Discrimination. If people are being banned from something based on gender or sexual orientation, then it doesn't matter if it is one or two genders, this is ridiculous. That is why the Mexican analogy does work. If a Mexican discriminates against all races, then he is Discriminating all races. A law set up to stop all same sex marriages in Discriminating against both genders for the reasons of disallowing same sex marriages due to their sexual orientation. It is Discriminating against me even, a hetero, for I am denied the right to marry a man if I chose to do so. This is illogical and there is no logical reason for such Discrimination.

if he "discriminates" against people of all races including his own then it's meaningless to call him racist or to imply that his hatred is based on race at all.

if smoking becomes illegal for men and also for women, the government is not discriminating based on gender, though both genders are affected.

if two genders are being discriminated against instead of one, it does not necessarily negate all discrimination but it negates the idea of gender discrimination.

abuse is not Discrimination unless it is based on a characteristic shared by those being mistreated, such as gender, age or skin color. for example, it can be argued that females are discriminated against in the workplace and males are discriminated against in custody battles, because in both cases one gender is given deferential treatment. if in the case of gay marriage neither males nor females are receiving worse treatment than the other as a gender group, gender is not the common characteristic you are looking for.

it is more likely to be orientation: that is, a person's preference for either his own gender or the opposite. I think before we were having issues with the definition of orientation. you were using it to mean "the gender a person is attracted to" and I was using it to mean "a person's preference for his own gender or the opposite," so that practically our definitions would translate, respectively, to "his orientation is for males" or "his orientation is homosexual."

in this way I could very well say that everyone affected by gay marriage laws has the same orientation (homosexual), but you would disagree, saying that half of them are attracted to men (gay) and half to women (lesbians).

with my definition, you could argue that orientation discrimination is taking place, in that the government is abusing homosexuals (and only homosexuals), while heterosexuals are shown deferential treatment.

I would then rebut, any adult may enter into a marriage contract if he meets the terms, and his orientation is never asked for or even taken into consideration. that would leave us right back where we started, arguing about the government's role and purpose in marriage, but blissfully free of all rhetoric like "discrimination," "bigotry," etc., which are distracting and unhelpful.
 
But that's not a marriage license, licenses are issued by the state, not the Catholic Church. Besides, even if the church could issue licenses, they would not refuse to issue one because one did not breed, but they could recind one after the fact for someone not breeding somewhere down the line.

I said that they were issued by the state. However, the state will abide by the rules of the religion.

Any church can refuse to issue the state license. That's a privilege they reserve being a private institution. So if homosexual marriage was made legal, for example, a church still does not have to perform the ceremony. Most Catholic churches require a certain number of couples counseling sessions before a marriage. If the priest feels that the couple is not ready to be married or that the marriage would not fall in line with Catholic views (i.e. they don't want kids), it would be within his rights to refuse to perform the service.
 
I understand that it is the exception but I don't understand how the catholic example illustrates that point since the church doesn't give out marriage licenses in the US.

I did my best to explain, I don't know how to be clearer. I'm sorry :(
 
Back
Top Bottom